51–60 of 106 posts
The confusion is because of the name. If they called their international subsidiary, "Super Mega Global Worldwide Media Corporation", it wouldn't seem any more or less ridiculous than anyone else doing geo-targeting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the BBC is no longer producing content for BBC 1 and 2 in the UK? Don't be ridiculous.
I never said I didn't like it, I said it was drivel. I'm quite partial to the odd well produced period drama. What I'm trying to say is that recently they tend produce content with a mind to how the US will receive this new content. Dr who, top gear and downton abbey for instance. All of these are popular in the US and while that isn't a bad thing (more money to the BBC to hopefully make more content) what I disagree…
> what I disagree with is that all they produce is more of the SAME content
A motoring show, a children's sf show, and a period drama (not produced by the BBC but bought in for BBC to sell abroad) are "the SAME content"?
The BBC are prohibited from running certain commercial services (of which BBC.com is one) in the UK due to regulatory requirements. It's not their decision. You could of-course lobby your MP to get it changed, but I imagine there would be substantial opposition from both supporters and opponents of public media services to allowing BBC to run commercial services in the UK.
The thing is they're still running the services whether someone in the UK consumes it or not. I thought the primary reason for it not running commercial services was so that its integrity as an independent source of news and culture wasn't compromised. So surely by running anything commercial, it is potentially compromised. You can already see that by the type of programmes that get made these days. It's clear much o…
I don't know if any of the brits here have ever browsed the BBC from abroad - when I was at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 (being at a political gathering, I was on free wifi and news sites half the time) I was shocked to see the BBC news site with adverts on it! I was laughed at by the Danes, Swedes and Canadians I was with, because obviously the BBC always had adverts on. Seriously, if the law says the BBC can't show…
The BBC brand is hugely valuable, letting a commercial site use it (even one owned by the BBC) is clearly promotion.
Shame.
While this sounds laudable as an idea, for this to work it also means that the British taxpayer is not allowed to subsidize BBC Worldwide in any way. For example, BBCW pays rent at market rates for its office space to the rest of the BBC, even though they're in the same building, and they're virtually prohibited from selling anything in the UK. Add in the fact that the rest of the British media business is (understandably) quite pissed off about having a competitor that operates under a different set of rules, meaning they watch it like a hawk and squawk as soon as there's even a hint of unfair advantage, and you get all sorts of bizarro-world conflicts and overblown solutions like this that throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(Disclaimer: I used to work for a company owned by BBC Worldwide. This is my personal opinion.)
The BBC are prohibited from running certain commercial services (of which BBC.com is one) in the UK due to regulatory requirements. It's not their decision. You could of-course lobby your MP to get it changed, but I imagine there would be substantial opposition from both supporters and opponents of public media services to allowing BBC to run commercial services in the UK.
This applies also to BBC Travel, which is run in partnership with Lonely Planet, last I checked. I used to really enjoy those articles, now I never read them because I can't be faffed to proxy up every time...
The BBC are prohibited from running certain commercial services (of which BBC.com is one) in the UK due to regulatory requirements. It's not their decision. You could of-course lobby your MP to get it changed, but I imagine there would be substantial opposition from both supporters and opponents of public media services to allowing BBC to run commercial services in the UK.
If it's not funded by the license then that suggests that part of the BBC has been quietly privatised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A series of Downton Abbey costs approx £12MM and reaches 13MM people in the UK alone[1]. The 2hr pilot episode of LOST cost $12MM[2]. Each episode of Game of Thrones has a budget of $6MM[3]. So no, they don't cost a lot of money to make, relatively speaking. Edit: sources. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8717969/Trench... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... [3] http:/…
(although Downton Abbey is an ITV programme)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the BBC is no longer producing content for BBC 1 and 2 in the UK? Don't be ridiculous.
No but large swaths of the UK probably don't watch BBC1 or BBC2 on a regular basis as they have a sky or cable and I agree with them, they shouldn't need to fund the BBC if they don't use the content. Reports suggest we'd make 6-7 billion on a sell off. Sell it and put the money towards buying back openreach because an infrastructure is what .gov should do, not content. =p